Catherine Gwen Constable

Oral History of Catherine Gwen Constable Interview conducted by Laura Harkewicz 27 April 2007 Copyright March 2011 by the Regents of the University of California

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT and INTERVIEW HISTORY 3 INTERVIEW: 27 April 2007 Photo of Catherine Constable, 1994 4 Coming to Scripps 5 Her Work as Oceanography? 7 Working with Statistical Models 9 Scripps People Who Influenced her Career 12 Joining the Faculty at Scripps 13 Australia vs. America 15 Socializing at Scripps 16 Married Couples Working at Scripps 18 Funding 20 The Magnetics Information Consortium 23 Ethics and the Conduct of Science 26 Science as Shared Knowledge 33 The Responsibility of a Scientist 38 The Joys of Scientific Research 42 Scripps Success and Threats to its Success 45 Teaching at Scripps 47 What Scripps has Meant to Her 48

3 ABSTRACT: Catherine Gwen Constable was interviewed in the Helen Raitt Room at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Library in La Jolla, California on April 27, 2007. Constable was born in St. Andrews, Scotland on September 9, 1958. She received her B. S. from the University of Western Australia in 1979 and her M. S. from the Australian National University in 1982. She received a Ph.D. in Earth Sciences from Scripps Institution of Oceanography in 1987. Her dissertation title was: Some Statistical Aspects of the Geomagnetic Field. She joined the Scripps and UCSD faculty as an assistant professor of geophysics in 1991 and became a full professor of geophysics in 1998. Her current research interests and projects relate to geomagnetism and paleomagnetism, applications of statistical techniques to geophysics data analysis and inverse theory, applications of satellite magnetometry, and ethics in the conduct of science. She is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the Royal Astronomical Society. The interview focused on Constable s experiences as a woman geophysicist at Scripps. We also talked about what it is like to be married to another scientist working at the Institution. We discussed her memories of graduate student life as well as her experiences as a researcher and professor at Scripps. The interview included her reflections on ethics in science and scientific responsibility. INTERVIEW HISTORY: The interview took place at midday at the end of a spring work week in the Helen Raitt Room on the third floor of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Library in La Jolla, California. We talked for approximately two hours with no interruptions. Laura Harkewicz Oral Historian, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego May 29, 2007

Catherine Constable in her office, 1994. Scripps Institution of Oceanography Archives, UC San Diego. 4

5 INTERVIEW WITH CATHERINE CONSTABLE: 27 APRIL 2007 So, this is April 27, 2007. We are in the Helen Raitt room in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography library in La Jolla, California, and I am here with Dr. Catherine Constable. Good morning Dr. Constable. Good morning, Laura. So, thank you for coming. And, hopefully we'll have a rousing discussion here today. First of all, I always have to ask people how you came to Scripps? How did you get to Scripps and into oceanography? How did you get involved in that? Okay. Well, I came to Scripps initially as a graduate student in 1983, and I have to say that it wasn't my plan to come to Scripps. [Laugh] It was actually my plan to go and be a graduate student in Edmonton, in Alberta. But, I came here with my husband who came to a post doctoral position here and this was one of the places where we were both offered positions, him as a post doc and me as a graduate student. And, at the time we weren't quite sure whether this was what we wanted to do, but we came here and it worked out. All right. Well, that's great. [Laugh] So, I wanted to ask you too, I know you were born in Scotland. Correct me if I'm wrong, and you were raised in Australia. And, I wondered if you found the educational system to be any different here than it was in your previous experience? Yes it is, really, in many ways somewhat different. I did my elementary school schooling in Scotland, and then I went to high school, and I did a bachelors degree and also a Masters degree in Australia. The differences at that time, and I think they're less pronounced now, but at that time the differences were that in Australia people tended to choose a specialization or at least a general area of specialization before they go to college for a bachelors degree. In the U.S., I think, looking at my children I see that it's very common for people to have no idea even whether they want to do liberal arts or science and they change their minds a number of times during the course of their undergraduate degrees. In Australia that's pretty unusual. I actually did change my mind, because I started out enrolling in a languages degree, and changed my mind there, and that was rather hard to do. [Laugh] So, you started out in languages and you ended up in science? Yes. And I was lucky to be able to do it because I had sort of been preserving my options in high school, which not everybody was able to do but I did. I was able to do that. But really by the time I was in my first year as an undergraduate I was pretty much determined that it was going to be physical sciences of some kind that I would do, and that's a big difference. And then another big difference is

6 that it's quite common in Australia, as I did, to do a Master of Science degree entirely by research, without any coursework involved in graduate studies. It's very typical in Australia that people who do graduate degrees don't actually take any classes. And so, that's quite a different thing from what goes on here, at UCSD where it's quite common for people to do at least a year's coursework as part of their PhD programs. I guess that would follow, though, with what you had said about people sort of having a better idea of what they're going to do earlier in their life? That's right. At the time I went to college in Australia there was no idea of having to do general education courses. So all of the courses that I did, once I decided I was going to major in physics, which is what my undergraduate major was, were all directed at the physical sciences. So, they were all math, and physics, and chemistry, and no sort of side issues there about getting a general education in history, or philosophy, or language. Boy, you have to be pretty directed, I guess. What happens if you decide, "Oops. I made a mistake"? [Laugh] Your whole life has already been going in that direction. Well, I think it gets easier now, you know the system is becoming more flexible as time goes on. That was quite a while ago, after all. [Laugh] Okay. [Laugh] So, your husband is in geophysics also, correct? Is that.... That's right, and he did his PhD at the Australian National University in Canberra, and I had done a masters degree there and we both were interested in coming to the U.S., and he actually wanted, had this opportunity to come to Scripps and work with Chip Cox, 1 who was in the Physical Oceanography Research Division at the time and was interested in, was actually doing pioneering measurements on electromagnetic studies in the ocean, so looking at the electrical conductivity of the earth's crust. And, my husband Steve 2 was interested in doing that. It was an opportunity to do something new that he hadn't done before. He thought that would be really neat, which was a difference from something that we would have done if we'd gone elsewhere where we would have done something rather similar to what we'd done before. And, to be honest I think it was, of course, a very reasonable and rational decision to come here and one that's been great for our careers. So, do you consider what you do oceanography? 1 Charles Shipley ( Chip ) Cox (1922- ) came to Scripps in 1954 as a research oceanography and served as Professor of Oceanography from 1960 until his retirement in 1991. He chaired the Ocean Research Division. 2 Steven Constable ( - ) received a Ph.D. in Geophysics from Australian National University in 1983 and came to Scripps Institution of Oceanography as a Postdoctoral Research Oceanographer. He is now Professor in Residence, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, at Scripps.

7 No. [Laugh] Okay. I don't go to sea at all. I consider what I do to be global geophysics, which means that I'm interested in the properties of the whole earth and how the whole earth has evolved over time. I would consider oceanography to be a small part of that. I mean, I would say marine geophysics would be a small part of that in the sense that it directly involves things that go on underneath the ocean. Now, some of what I do involves looking at collecting records from or looking at records that other people have collected from marine sediment cores. And, of course, it's hard to get away from plate tectonics in the ocean, and the kind of mitering geological plate tectonic history of the world. But, what I do is not dependent on there being an ocean out there, by and large. Well, do you think this is kind of a tough question since this is your work anyways but, do you think it's an appropriate use of Scripps, since it is an institution of oceanography, to do the kind of work that you do? Oh, absolutely. I think it is. The reason, you know, if there was no earth underneath it there wouldn't be an ocean. [Laugh] Okay. And, I think that without the global processes that go on we would be very hardput to understand what goes on oceanographically. I suppose you could say that we have a very strong group here in global geophysics, as you probably know, and I think that one of the things that we've done has been to provide a very good idea of what the structure of the earth looks like and that provides a context for understanding how the earth has evolved over time. The oceans are a product of global Earth processes and if we can't understand those global Earth processes we'll never understand what goes on in the ocean, we'll never understand global change, climate change. There are these interactions between the formation of ocean crust. It's the simplest thing that you can think of. But then there's also, you know, recycling of various chemicals in the system and water. So there are these links between the ocean, the atmosphere, and the bit that's underneath us that we don't see directly and those are tremendously important in understanding what goes on. Okay. Earlier you said you're doing things that are different than you would have done if you had gone elsewhere. So I guess that would imply that your research went in different directions than it probably would have? So, can you talk about that a little bit maybe?

8 Yes. I came here having worked in Australia as what's called a paleomagnetist. So, what I did was to study the record of the Earth's magnetic field in lake sediments when I was in Australia. Of course, you know everybody starts out small and specialized. [Laugh] And, my specialty at that time was in looking at the record in very high sedimentation rate lake sediments, of the direction of the magnetic field during the past few thousand years. So, during the Holocene, the last ten thousand years, which was the topic for my thesis, my masters thesis. When I came here I actually initially applied to become a student in the geosciences research division. But, they wouldn't have me because I hadn't actually done any earth science classes, [Laugh] which was fair enough, you know. They were a geological group and they looked for geological qualifications. So, what happened was that, when I came here, because I had a background in physical sciences, even though I'd done something earth sciences for my masters degree, I ended up working at IGPP, the Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics. You may know that IGPP has a very strong background in theoretical sort of geophysics in Inverse Theory and modeling, and developing tools for interpreting geophysical data. And so, what I did for my PhD was to actually move in a much more theoretical direction. I worked on using, developing ways of interpreting data through Inverse Theory, and then also through using statistical methods to understand the rather spotty record of the geomagnetic field in the past in the sense that you get what's recorded in the rocks, and the rocks don't necessarily cooperate with what you want. It's not like taking an instrument out and measuring things continuously. You've sort of given it over to the rock as your magnetic recorder and that's not necessarily a very faithful recorder. Okay. So, you mentioned you don't go out to sea but do you do fieldwork at all? I've done quite a lot of land-based fieldwork, collecting samples of I've been involved at Scripps in a project that looks at what the magnetic field looks like averaged over very long time scales, so over million-year time scales. And, that's involved a fairly extensive amount of fieldwork in sampling lava flows that have erupted over the last five million years, with a view to getting a record, a global record, of what the magnetic field looks like from the magnetic record in those lava flows. So that has involved fieldwork all over the globe basically. And, some of that I've participated in. Some of that other people have worked on. So, you also mentioned using core samples. Are things from like the Deep Sea Drilling Project or are they from other places? Yeah. Deep Sea Drilling Project is a big source of core samples and then there are also things like piston cores, which tend to be much shallower cores and they tend, of course, to be less disturbed than the Deep Sea Drilling Project cores, which are much longer samples. But, my primary focus from the field perspective has been on looking at records that come from lava flows where we take very, very short cores, which we take with a portable hand drill. Which,

9 they're sort of one-inch diameter cores and a few centimeters long, ten, fifteen centimeters long. Okay. So, you're talking about using actual materials, and then you were talking about statistical models. So, how much would you say like in an average workday is working with these objects, [Laugh] versus working with the models? Most of what I do is working with models. I think it's really important to keep a connection between going in the field and working with the data from them and the modeling side of things. Because, one can be terribly deluded about what one can get out of the observations if one doesn't actually go out and look at the rocks in place and see, you know. [Laugh] There's a big difference between somebody giving you a direction of the magnetic field and saying, "This was the direction at this time," and then going out in the field and seeing the mess of the rock that was a lava flow that erupted and looks very lumpy and hard to tell whether it's actually still in the same place as when it erupted. And, of course, you have to figure out what the date was when that eruption occurred and that involves, typically radiometric dating and all sorts of complications associated with that. And, I think it's a really important thing for people to keep the links between the theoretical and the practical aspects of doing the geosciences. So, you find you have to change your models then after you see real life, so to speak? I think, what it does do is it teaches you a greater appreciation for the uncertainties of the things that are being measured. So, when you go out and you take a rock sample and you bring it back and you treat it in the lab and you get a direction for the magnetic field or a measure of field strength you always have to assign an uncertainty to every observation. And, that's probably the hardest part about doing science, I think, is putting the uncertainty estimates on what you've measured and deciding what the limitations are. And, I think for theoreticians it's especially hard because they feel it ought to be possible to measure things better. [Laugh] But, in fact, the limitations about the assumptions that you make in making the measurements and the limitations of the recording medium, you know, can make a big difference to what you get as the final result. So, you don't consider yourself a theoretician then in that respect? Oh, I think I do. I mean, I think I am a theoretician, yes. [Laugh] All right. Most of my colleagues think that, I think.

10 Okay. I want to ask you another question about the models, though, and I want to phrase this well. I talked to Richard Somerville 3 about climate. I know he's not really into climate modeling but we talked a little bit about climate models and, in Science Studies, we actually had a workshop about models last spring. Oh yes, and actually I wanted to come to that and I couldn't. [Laugh] It clashed with something else. I thought that would be interesting to have come to. Well, you probably would have understood a lot of things much better than I did. But, what I wanted to ask, though, is how I guess I'll just say this. I'm not sure this is the best way to say this. Do you see the model as being a model or do you see it as being a replacement for the real world? Oh, I don't think it's a replacement for the real world. The model is full of flaws and I think this gets down to what I was trying to say about the importance to have the connection between the observations and the theory. People who are purely theoreticians in the sense that they, they describe things by, from first principles using physical laws, if you like. In my mind are doomed to failure if they don't take observations into account. Because, I think the greatest, most of the ways forward it seems to me for theoreticians have come because of the need to explain observations. Okay. Now, of course, in modeling, there are different ways of thinking about modeling. The models that I typically deal with tend to be, I would say, sort of descriptions that bring data together and describe them in a global way. So, we'll have a collection of observations of the magnetic field at various places and times, and what we would like is to have a mathematical description, if you like, that would then say, "Supposing I don't have an observation here at this place in time can I make a prediction about it?" Now then, when you go and make a measurement there, of course, you've make a prediction there and what you use that prediction for is up to you. I mean, or what the particular scientific problem that you're interested in. But typically, I would say that what it does is it serves as a sort of basis for building hypotheses that you can then test. You can say, "Okay, I think that this is what I ought to see there and is that compatible with the data that I do have or the data from a similar latitude in the southern hemisphere?" In which case, you might worry about whether you have sort of hemispherical asymmetries in the magnetic field, for example. Now, I would contrast that with something that perhaps the climate modelists do but also is done in my field in people who try to build numerical simulations of how the magnetic field work, where they take the physics of what goes on in the core and then they try to build a self- 3 Richard Chapin James Somerville (1941-) received his Ph.D. in meteorology from New York University in 1966 and has been professor of meteorology in the Climate Research Division (formerly called the Climate Research Group) at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD since 1979. His current research analyzes the role of clouds, cloud-radiation interaction, and cloud feedbacks in climate.

11 dynamical geodynamo simulation. So the process of generating magnetic field, we believe, comes from a self-sustaining dynamo in the Earth's core. And, there are people who try to build physical and numerical computer simulations of that. Those things, I don't believe, can replace the real world or even make predictions directly about the real world. They can make predictions that we ought to be able to compare with our observations based on sort of statistical descriptions, if you like. You can say that "On average I would expect the magnetic field to look like this. But if I ask you, using one of these things, to say, "What does the magnetic field look like at this time and place?" we're not yet at the stage of being able to do that. To do that we'd have to have a form of sort of data assimilation the way the climate people do, where they bring in, you know, weather measurement observations and then they make a weather forecast, which we then criticize. [Laugh] So, the predictions that you're making from the models, based on data and things, observations from other places, are you able to follow up with a direct observation or is this sometimes things that you're trying to.... Well, they're not direct observations in the sense of present-day observations. What they are are really about building a picture of what the magnetic field looked like in the past. In the past? Okay. And so, it, I mean it's a lot like trying to reconstruct some sort of historical scenario, except that we don't have writings or word of mouth kind of things. What we're doing is we're trying to read the record that's in the rocks. And, you know, in some cases you can go and you can find appropriate sediment records that you can actually sort of say, "Is this compatible with what I believe from my model?" And, if it's not then you have to think about revising the model. And that might lead us to say, "Well, okay, there are some things that are going on that really we don't understand in the way that we think about how the magnetic field works." And this is also where the numerical simulations that I was talking about tie in as well, because, in order for those things to be good they have to build in all the appropriate physics. The appropriate physics depends on what we know, which we get from the observations. Okay. Do you think there's anyone in particular at Scripps who may have influenced your research, especially when you were a graduate student? Oh yeah. There were lots of people who influenced my research. When I came here initially I thought that I would work as a graduate student with Lisa Tauxe, 4 who is a paleomagnetist, and she actually came here the same week that I did, as a researcher. And, I thought that, "Well, she would be an interesting person to 4 Lisa Tauxe (1956- ) got her Ph.d. from Columbia University in 1983 and is now Professor of Geophysics, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD.

12 work with." And, in fact, I didn't work with her as a graduate student because her interests at the time were much more geological than mine were. I was more interested in the sort of the physical aspects of the magnetic field and I sort of viewed the collecting of records as being a, you know, a way to discover about the way the magnetic field evolved where she was more interested in the geological history and things like that at the time. So, when I was here at Scripps I worked with Bob Parker, who was my thesis advisor. 5 I also, in the early part when I first came here I worked with Alan Chave, and thought at the time that I might do something that was more related to electrical conductivity studies, but I sort of moved away from that fairly, fairly rapidly. 6 So, Bob had a huge influence on the way that I think, you know, because at the time he was writing his book on Inverse Theory, and he was teaching graduate classes in Inverse Theory and there was another, he had another graduate student at the same time, a guy called Philip Stark, who is now a professor of statistics at Berkeley. 7 And so, we had a very close collaboration as students in the sense that we were working on dissimilar things. He was working on seismology but we were using the same kind of tools to try and understand what was going on. And, you know, there were lots of other people who have had a lot of influence on me, people that I've collaborated with over the years and learned a lot from. So, you said that in Australia you went directly into research without taking coursework. Now, I guess you probably had to take coursework when you were working on your PhD here then? Yes, it was a big shock, you know. [Laugh] I did a masters degree part-time at the Australian National University, and to do that I didn't have to do any coursework but I just had to figure out what I needed to know. And then, when I came here there were classes to take in the geophysics program, and my goal was to take as few as possible [Laughter] because it was really a big shock, you know. When you haven't been taking classes for four years, to come back and discover that somebody can give you homework and say, "You've got to do this by the next day." Yeah, I understand. [Laughter] Especially when you've been focused on your own research for a long time and then somebody's telling you to do something that you don't really want to. [Laugh] Well, and you know the thing is that the time management skills are completely different. Because, I think that typically when you're in the workforce you're 5 Robert Ladislav Parker (1942-) received a Ph.D. in geophysics from Cambridge University and came to Scripps in the fall of 1967 as a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (IGPP). In 1974 he became an Associate Professor of Geophysics. He served as Director of IGPP and Professor of Geophysics until his retirement. 6 Name was misspelled in transcript as Chaff, and it has been changed to Chave, as seen here. 7 Philip B. Stark (1960- ) received a Ph.D. in earth Science from UCSD in 1986 and a postdoctoral fellow at Scripps Institution of Oceanography after completing his dissertation He went to the University of California Berkeley and became Professor of Statistics in 1988.

13 time scale for dealing with problems and producing results is much longer than it is when you're in the educational system as a student. Where there are some things that are long-term, but then there are also things where you go to class and somebody sort of says, "Okay, got to have this done in two days," and this is a quite different way of doing work than the way that you grow accustomed to doing research as a graduate student. Right. But, you survived, I guess? You made it through? Oh yeah. I seem to have survived. [Laughter] So, when did you join the faculty here at Scripps? I joined the faculty in 1991. I was a graduate student here and then I actually never left but I became first a postdoc here and then as a researcher on soft money. Okay. I've talked to some women who were, like Miriam Kastner, who was the first faculty person here. How many women would you say you ran into as other students or as other faculty people when you were here? Well, an increasing number as time went on. [Laughter] I know, that was kind of badly worded. How many? How many? Well, it is actually interesting that I think I'm something like, I can't remember the exact place, but I'm something like the fourth or fifth woman to graduate in IGPP. They have a list of, you know, all the people, all their graduates and the people who were working for PIs in IGPP and there are only a handful of people who were there, who had graduated before I did. But actually, my experience here was much more woman-friendly than in Australia. [Laugh] Well I wondered about that. Yeah. Where, I mean as an undergraduate in physics, I was the only woman in my class. And, at the Australian National University there were, I think, two or three other women in the entire department who were doing PhDsthere. So.... Is that because of the kind of program you were in or is there some other biases just in the educational system in general in Australia? Both, I think. I mean, in the sense that in physics, physics and engineering departments are absolutely the worst, I think, from the point of view of gender balance. Still are, in Australia and here. And, I think that in Australia the number of people who go to college, as a percentage of the population, is smaller than here. And so, the small sample statistics, you know, exposes you to programs

14 where sometimes there just aren't any, there's nobody like you. No, they were not very large classes. But, when I was in the graduate program here as a PhD student, you know, there were I think, about four or five women who were really, all doing things that were not very dissimilar from what I was doing. So, they were maybe twenty-five percent or thirty percent of the class at that time. And now, they're fifty. Okay, you mean just.... Or close to fifty percent. Okay. You know, you mean as far as your research? Yeah. But okay. As far as my research in that. So.... Okay. Did you notice any difference? Do you feel there was any difference, you were treated any differently as a woman, or just a smaller number of women as the men? Here? Yeah. I've always had very good treatment here and I don't feel like people have been prejudiced against me because of being a woman at all, or treated me differently. Okay. What about.... This has been a very good environment, from that perspective. That's good. [Laughter] Did you notice, just in general, between your life in Australia and life here? I mean, not necessarily work related, just socially and stuff like that, can, were there differences in just the way people, obviously there probably was. Can you talk about that at all? Oh, I think one of the reasons that I ended up in the U.S. is because the U.S. is a much larger system and at the time I was a student in Australia there were really very limited opportunities in academia, or in research at all. And so, at the time that I came here it was very much a sort of a, well if I wanted to go on doing research then it was a matter of going somewhere else in order to open up those opportunities. And, so that's a big difference. Australia had and probably still has a reputation for being a rather chauvinist culture.

15 I've heard that but I wasn't sure if it was true or not. [Laughter] Well, it certainly was true at the time that I was growing up there. I think it's less true now, though, I mean you still run into it. But then, you run into it here too, you know. It depends on where you go. Yeah. It depends on where you go. I think one of the things here is that in a large, sort of, quite sophisticated university environment, like the University of California, people are very broadly exposed to a lot of cultures and whatever they think they don't necessarily express it because they know that it's not acceptable to do so. Okay. But that's not the case in Australia? [Laugh] Well, it wasn't when I was growing up there, because at that time it was perfectly acceptable to express it. [Laughter] Okay. All right. But, you know, it's almost twenty-five years since I've lived there and so what I'm saying now is not reflective of what goes on there now. Do you go back to visit? Yeah, I do. Family still back there? Yeah, I have family there. The people that you met, like in your graduate career, women and men, have you kept in touch with them, or are there still people, other people that stayed at Scripps? There are other people who stayed at Scripps. A couple of my colleagues, Peter Shearer is a seismologist here. 8 The people that I worked with during my graduate career, many of them are still around. There are other people that I stay in contact with, people that I shared offices with. We talked about our research as graduate students, and yeah. So, there are a lot of ties, you know. In a place like Scripps you build professional relationships for life. You keep seeing these people at all the professional meetings and running the scientific establishment and professional societies. You go on seeing all these people forever. [Laughter] 8 Peter Marston Shearer (1956- ) got his Ph.D. in geophysics at UCSD in 1986 and returned to Scripps in 1988 after a postdoc at the University of Cambridge. He has been a Professor of Geophysics at IGPP since 1995.

16 So, you don't want to make any enemies? [Laugh] Well, you have to keep in mind that if you're going to make enemies you're not going to get rid of them, you know. You can't just put them to one side. [Laugh] I understand. Now, I talked to some of the older individuals from Scripps, like from the '50s. They were graduate students in the '50s and the '60s, and when Scripps was smaller there was a lot of socializing within certain groups. And, I wondered how that was for you by the time you had come here? You know, when I was a graduate student here there was a pretty strong social group there. I have the impression and I don't know if this is correct, really, but I have the impression that we actually socialized across groups more than happens now. At that time I knew people who were in the geosciences group, who worked in the paleomagnetic lab. I still know those people like Jeff Gee, 9 who's now a professor in residence here, works in GRD. There were actually ties between physical oceanographers and the geophysicists that were perhaps stronger at that time. I took some classes in physical oceanography. So yeah, I think people are becoming more specialized now in some ways, in spite of our desire to move towards multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary programs. Those things are perhaps, [Laugh] I don't know how to say this, you know. It's that people are doing things at the edges of specific kinds of fields but they don't necessarily have the broader education that you get out of a smaller group, because the coverage is just less, if you see what I mean? Okay. So, as you're.... I mean, I think Scripps has grown, and that means that you can't talk to everybody here. Right. So, the tendency is to speak to the people whose words you understand. Okay. So, you tend to socialize with people that you can talk about work with? Yeah, I think a lot of people do. Yeah. I mean my experience is that a very strong basis of my social life was at Scripps when I was a graduate student as a postdoc here. And, in fact, in many ways I've only kind of broadened out into the larger community as I've had children and that forces you to socialize with people who do other things because you meet your children's friends. People outside of Scripps, you mean? 9 Jeffrey Scott Gee (1962- ) got his Ph.D. in geophysics from UCSD in 1991 and is Professor in Residence at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

17 People outside of Scripps. And,as one sort of grows more senior in the university then you end up meeting people from the rest of the campus as well, of course. Okay. Do you live around here? I live in University City, which is pretty.... Okay. Well that's pretty close. Yeah. Pretty around here. Yeah. [Laugh] I wanted to ask you before I forgot, though, because you were talking about taking classes. Do you teach? Yes. I do. And how is that being the one in charge then? [Laugh] Do you like teaching? Yes, I do. I think it's very satisfying. I think it's satisfying from a number of perspectives. Firstly, if you're going to teach something you have to understand it, and you understand it in a way that's different from what you get from studying it as a researcher, because you have to explain it to people who don't understand it. [Laugh] They have a different approach to it. And, I think that's a great thing. So, you get a new understanding of how you look at things. I always find that that feeds into the way that I think about research. But, I think it's also very satisfying to see people learn things. And, you know, when you have people who are interested in what they're learning and all of a sudden they say, "Ah! I get it." You know, that's a great, great feeling. Uhm-hmm. Do you teach at the undergraduate level also? I have done. I'm not doing that at the moment but I have in the past. There's an undergraduate Earth Sciences program at UCSD and I've taught geophysics in that program. And then I've taught various graduate classes over the years. How does that affect your research then, if you're teaching? Well, you know, good teaching is very time consuming, but on the other hand I usually find that when I'm teaching I start thinking about things in new ways and that's good for research. Okay. [Laughter] So, not like your observations and your models things? You have to sort of go back and forth kind of thing?

18 I always think that whatever experiences you have you kind of inform what goes on. I mean, of course there are some conflicts between teaching and doing things like fieldwork, in the sense that, you know, you can't go away for months on end on fieldwork while you're trying to teach a class. Because it really doesn't work very well. But, I don't do that much fieldwork that that's really a problem for me. Okay. I wanted to ask you, you mentioned that you came here with your husband and he's still working here as well, correct? That's right. And, I wondered what that was like? Because, with some of the older scientists that I spoke to there was a, Scripps had problems with couples working here at one time or another. I'm not really sure why but usually the women were the ones who suffered, but I wondered what it was like for you in your experience? I think that I was quite lucky in the sense that I came at a time when it was becoming acceptable. When I came here initially there was some ambiguity about whether things like out-of-state tuition would be paid, initially, which probably wouldn't have occurred if I'd been, you know, applying on my own. I mean, it's like all two-body problems. Things get complicated. Things are complicated. But actually, I think, I've had a very good experience working here and I think, I have the impression that Scripps does this quite well now. If you look around the faculty here now there are a lot of my contemporaries who have spouses or significant others who are in the same organization, and for me that's always worked out. There was a very complicated period where we didn't know, after I graduated, where we were going to end up, but I think everybody has that. It's just a question of how it gets resolved. And in the end, we were able to resolve that. I had a faculty position and my husband had a research position and for a long time, for awhile that was a soft-money research position and now of course the institution provides some support for those people and he has subsequently become a professor in residence. So, I found that actually very good and I've also found that people are very sensible. In my experience people have been very sensible about things like potential conflicts of interest. And, we've always tried to be sensible about them too, to not get involved in things we shouldn't. [Laugh] You know, I mean things where the university has rules about what you can do with your spouse and your children, or anybody else who works for the university. Nepotism and stuff like that? Nepotism, and those kinds of things. And, if one follows those rules I think it's okay. Okay.

19 It works good. Did you ever have any difficulties and you can answer this or not, -- you know your personal life with you both working here? Was it ever problematic for you or your husband? No. I mean, we've occasionally collaborated on things but we don't do a lot of work together. We actually work in rather similar fields, and we occasionally have collaborated on projects, but mostly we haven't done that and I think that's probably been a good thing, you know. At some point it's good to just be able to put aside the work and sort of say, "Okay. Enough of that for today." [Laugh] And, you don't feel like either one of you have had to compromise your science at all because you're both here, or you're both.... No. I don't think so. One of the reasons for that is because Scripps is such a large and successful organization. I mean, there was a period where my husband had some trouble with funding and I think that was not really a function of us both being here so much as a function of the fact that it was a kind of a cycle people were going through with NSF where they weren't interested in funding the particular kind of science that he was doing. He went and looked elsewhere for funding and after a kind of rocky bit he got out of that and was very successful doing other things. Okay. So, you mentioned funding. I was wondering where you typically do get your funding for your work? I get my funding from the National Science Foundation, mostly from the Earth Sciences program there, in geophysics. There are various subdivisions of NSF that I get it from. And, I also get some funding from NASA. NASA runs satellites that monitor the current magnetic field. I don't think I said that my interest in magnetic field isn't just about the old magnetic field. It's also about, the magnetic field in general. [Laugh] And so, that's where NASA comes in, because they fly these satellites and I've been involved in interpreting those data. So, how much time do you think you spend like writing grants for funding? Oh, it's very variable. It depends how many students I have and postdocs at the time, but typically I write probably three or four proposals a year, something like that. And, do you find that [Sigh].... Tedious? [Laugh]

20 Well, tedious. I imagine it is, but I know that some of the older scientists, people that were used to ONR funding, you know, they're all bent out of shape about having to write grants and things like that. Well, I didn't grow up with that. I'm just pleased there's someplace I can write proposals. [Laugh] Yeah. Okay. But, no, I have to say, I think there are some aspects of it that, that can be a little annoying from time to time, that sometimes you think there's money available. You write a proposal and it turns out there's no money available and you think, "Well, why did I waste my time doing that?" And, from time to time, it's a source of stress trying to figure out how one's going to pay all the, you know, as a professor you end up supporting students, and postdocs, and technical people, and it can be a source of stress when you don't see where that money's going to come from. Because, tenured professors don't lose their jobs but the people who work for them can... Which influences your work then, or what you need? Which yeah. From the point of view of actually having to write proposals, in some ways that can be the most exciting piece because you get to say, "What am I going to do now?" and look at all the new, bring together new ideas for where you want to see science go. I mean, it's not always the case. But some aspects of proposal writing really can be quite fun, in my opinion. So, you are.... But, don't tell the rest of the world that. [Laughter] Okay. You can write all the grants for the whole institution. But, this is a reflection of the fact that the people who were working here in the '50s were getting ONR and DOE money, it was just a sort of a vat they poured money into as far as I can tell. And, for them it's a big shock, and there was no accountability there in terms of having to write reports. I think the thing that I find most tedious about the funding process is not the writing of the proposals but the writing of the reports and the, "What did you do with this money?" and "No, you can't spend this money on that." Those, those kinds of things, I think, are tedious. Okay. So, would you say that then most of your money is soft money then? Well, I bring in twenty-five percent of my salary. The institution pays seventyfive percent of my salary. And then, if I want to have students or postdocs working with me then I have to raise the money to pay their salary.

21 Okay. Is that pretty typical then for most institutions, that.... It's, yeah. It's not atypical. I mean, researchers here, most of them have fifty percent of their salary supported by the director's office. They have a kind of parallel life to professors but they don't necessarily have to teach. It s, yeah, it's really quite typical. Some professors have a nine-month position and then they can raise extra money for summer salary if they want. I happen to have an eleven-month position that I get seventy-five percent of. So, it's just one of those complicated things. We shouldn't talk about this. Yeah. [Laughter] I'm sure there's probably all sorts of manipulations or something done, yeah. Well, there are all kinds of perceived inequities in the system there but one shouldn't worry about them, I think. That's nitpicking, really. Okay. You were talking about practical and theoretical before. Do you have to argue some sort of practicality when you write grants for your research? I have to convince somebody that they're going to learn something interesting. It doesn't have to have a practical application, like that necessarily? Well, at NSF there are two criteria on which they evaluate things. There are broader implications and then there's intrinsic academic merit, or some intellectual merit, I think it's called. [Laugh] The intrinsic intellectual merit basically sort of says, "Define the scientific problem and why anybody would want to know this." And if one makes the problem so narrow that only two people in the world care about it it's not very likely to get funded, I would say. That's what the peer review system does to you. So, you have to somehow put the science into a sufficiently broad context that people can see what they'll get out of it. That is, unless, you belong to a group that has so many members that you'll get peer review from people who are, of course, interested. I mean, there are some areas where many, many people work in a given area because it's been a hot topic, for example. I mean, you could think of climate change, for example, as being something like that at the moment. So, if you could define anything related to climate change then you might say you've got intrinsic interest there. But then, there's also the question whether you've learned anything, whether you're going to learn anything that will move science forward as a result. And then the broader implications, "Who could you teach this to?" "Could you explain this to a school child and would it be interesting?" And, "How, would the general public care about what you're doing?" Now, in the magnetic field business people are always very interested in geomagnetic reversals, the fact that the magnetic field had the opposite polarity in the past. It's a little bit like astronomy in that sense. And, on the other hand one has to make a compelling case that one's

22 going to learn something new from the science, from the particular proposal in question. Have you ever found yourself doing something like what you were talking about a minute ago, maybe trying to appeal to a hot topic and make what you're doing fit sort of into that in order to ensure funding? Not really, I don't think. [Laugh] I think that the work that I do is really not what I would call a hot topic. There are a lot of people at Scripps who do things that are very socially relevant. I would say climate change falls in that category. I would also say that to some extent earthquake studies and seismology of any kind can fall in that topic, and sometimes I think there are particular proposals, causal proposals where people are looking for things that are societally relevant, so they're working for hazard assessments and those kinds of things. It's hard to see how my work would fit into anything as useful as that. [Laughter] But it's still important, right? Well, you know, I think it is. At some level you have to convince people that things are important and I think that studies of the magnetic field are important because without a magnetic field, we probably wouldn't have an atmosphere. So, it's a question of where you want to say the selling is coming in. I think the magnetic field is an important part of our planet. Other planets that don't have magnetic fields are a lot less hospitable. It's also a sort of key contributor to the way that the whole planet has evolved. So, in the sense that it's worth studying the evolution of the planet over its history, then it's worth studying the magnetic field and understanding how it interacts also with the piece of the magnetic field that comes from the solar wind and the external magnetic field. Okay. Can you tell me something about the work that you do with the Magnetics Information Consortium. Oh. Well, that's really a sort of community service project, if you like, in the sense that what we're doing is we're trying to build an archive, a digital archive, of the kind of data that I typically collect, my colleagues in the paleomagnetic lab here at Scripps, Jeff Gee and Lisa Tauxe, collect, and anybody else worldwide so that people can have access to digital versions of the data without having to go directly to the people who collected it. So they can have it available on the web. This is is a reflection of the fact that typically when people write a research paper they'll publish a very small fraction of the information that they collected. Other people could benefit from having access to all of the measurements and information about the rocks that were collected for doing different kinds of, maybe doing similar kinds of studies and wanting to compare their data with the data that already exists, or for going back and using old data in new kinds of studies.

23 So, somebody would collect massive amounts of data and put it all online then? Yes. That's right. And the idea is that anybody in the world who's interested should then be able to have access to that online. So, a lot of the work that I do is very dependent on this kind of access to other people's data, because one of the things that I have sort of made my career on is compiling global data sets. So, taking data that other people have collected, where people have gone out, they've done a field study, they've collected rocks and they've studied what the magnetic field looked like over some time period at some place in the past. I actually spent a lot of my life gathering those things together so that one could make a global model of what the magnetic field is doing so you can sort of say, "This is what it, if you look at the magnetic field over this time interval globally this is what you would expect to see." And it's interesting from a point of view of synthesis. It tells you about how the magnetic field evolved over time. It's very hard to get those kinds of data collections together, you know. You write to people and they say, "Yes. Yes. I'll send it." [Laugh] And, it's not their top priority. And, it's also true that people grow tired of being asked for their data. If they have a very popular data set they send it to their friends [Laugh] and then somebody else asks for it and it's a lower priority, and they think, "Oh, you know, I'm tired of sending this." So, the idea is just to put all this data on the web so that anybody who wants to use it can have access to it. And, this is also, actually you mentioned the ethics issue earlier. I was going to ask you about that too. Okay. This is also part of the, the thing about taking public funding to do science. If you take public funding to do science then as part of the obligation that you undertake when you accept that funding, you promise to disseminate the results. And in the past disseminating results, fifty years ago disseminating results meant you wrote a paper and you published a little table with half a dozen numbers in it. That was really all that one was able to do in the way of results dissemination. You'd have the ideas out there. You would have the numbers, and if you really wanted to know all of the individual measurements it was a huge project, those things together, because they were basically written down in people's lab books. But now, we're in the digital age. People are collecting huge amounts of data. And so in my opinion, and I think in many people's opinion the standard has changed, you know. When you are disseminating the results you should, in principle, be able to give people all of the observations, all of the data that you collected in your lab so that if the results don't agree you can understand what the sources of the discrepancies are. You can say, "Oh, okay. I understand now. This instrument was calibrated differently." Or, I used a different method here when I was trying to measure the strength of the field in the past. I used a different technique for establishing the field strength. So, rather than just publishing the result that says, you know, at this time, this place, the field strength was this. You can say, "This is how I made these observations. This is the composition of the rocks that I used," and then this allows people to go back and reanalyze the data,